Josh Martin

Based on the additional facts provided in the other thread, it seems that the rule which was suspended was the 60 day notice period. It seems to me that such a rule is clearly intended for the protection of absentees and, as a result, may not be suspended.

Nonetheless, it is ultimately up to the trustees to enforce and interpret their own rules, and they seem to disagree with my interpretation. The trustees appear to have determined that this rule may be suspended. So far as parliamentary procedure is concerned, that is the end of the matter. If you wish to pursue this matter further, you will need to look elsewhere to see if there is any legal recourse available.

45 minutes ago, Guest Confused said:

In addition, they have two policies listed as internal board policies, one of which is on policy development. The policy on policy development sets out how they can adopt or amend any of the policies they have (for example, it requires a public notice period).

Question: would the internal board policies be considered special rules, rather than standing rules?

It depends on the nature of the rule. Rules which relate to the orderly conduct of business in meetings, or to the duties of officers in that connection, are rules of order. Rules which relate to administrative procedures are standing rules. A rule regarding how the board may adopt or amend policies is a special rule of order.

45 minutes ago, Guest Confused said:

Question: If the board adopts a motion to approve a new policy that is in conflict with their policy on policy development, would they require a majority, or would they require a 2/3s vote to do so?

Neither. The chair should rule the motion out of order and inform the member that he will need to instead move to amend the policy on policy development. I assume that policy specifies the vote required to amend a policy, but if not, RONR requires a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership to amend a special rule of order.

45 minutes ago, Guest Confused said:

Question: Can any of the board's polices simply be "waived" at any meeting? There is such a process to go through, for all previous policies to be enacted - I'm not sure what the *point* is if at any point they can just decide not to follow their policy. The policy does not provide any provision to be waived.

No, it would not be accurate to say that any of the board's policies may be waived. As a general rule, a special rule of order may be suspended by a 2/3 vote and a standing rule may be suspended by a majority vote. There are, however, a number of situations in which a rule may not be suspended. Additionally, rules in the bylaws may not be suspended, unless the rule provides for its own suspension or if the rule is clearly in the nature of a rule of order.

45 minutes ago, Guest Confused said:

Question: RONR states in the section on suspending the rules that "rules that have their application outside of the session which is in progress cannot be suspended" - would that apply to adopting a policy that conflicts with a process that's supposed to happen outside of the meeting?

If a policy proscribes a process which occurs outside of a meeting, this portion of the policy may not be suspended. Additionally, it is not in order in any event to adopt a policy which conflicts with an existing policy. Instead, the proper course of action is to amend the policy in question.

I get the feeling you have a specific situation in mind, and a lot of this stuff hinges on specifics, so it might help if you could give us more details.

56 minutes ago, Godelfan said:

Now, maybe it's illegal in your jurisdiction for the motion not to be recorded.  The law should be followed, of course, but it doesn't appear to me that such a law is an applicable procedural law, so it does not trump your rules of order.

It seems to me that a law regarding the content of the minutes would be in the nature of a rule of order, so I think this law would take precedence over RONR - not that it matters in this instance, since RONR also requires main motions to be recorded in the minutes.

19 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

George and Dan:  How do you reconcile the language on page 499 at lines 19-25 with the language on page 501 at lines 29-34?

The language on page 499 is in a paragraph clearly dealing with the INITIAL meeting after a new committee is formed.  There might not even be a chairman selected at that time, thus the language allowing any two members to call the first meeting.

The language on page 501, on the other hand, is clearly dealing with subsequent meetings after the initial meeting.  That section says it is up to the chairman to call future meetings unless the committee itself set the next meeting date.

Debbie's situation clearly falls into the second category.... it is a subsequent meeting, not the initial meeting.

Setting Debbie's situation aside for a moment, suppose that the chair actually refused to call a subsequent meeting? What is the committee supposed to do? Twiddle its thumbs?

19 hours ago, DebbieinFL said:

We are a standing committee.

• The first meeting for purposes of the current issue we were discussing was November 6th.
• There have been multiple emails regarding thoughts about the issues and members agreed that we needed to meet.
• Emails were being exchanged during this past weekend (Nov. 30-Dec. 5) to set up a convenient meeting
• Dec. 6 I received the notification that a meeting was being called at a so-so time and place by a committee member.

I think we're in judgement call territory. On the one hand, you have been actively attempting to schedule a meeting. On the other hand, you have not actually done so. It has now been over a month since the last meeting, and over a week since you started trying to set up a meeting. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule on this, as timelines for committees to complete their work vary widely.

Finally, I agree with Dan that, as a practical matter, if all members but the chair agree to meet at a certain time, then that's happening. If you wish, you can report the matter to the parent assembly. I don't know who they'll side with.

11 hours ago, ARYOUNG said:

What if the only time the county commission chairman is supposed to vote is to break a tie, but chooses to abstain because he needs more "verbiage"?

So far as RONR is concerned, a member has a right to abstain, period. If your organization's rules or applicable law provide otherwise, those rules take precedence, but we can't interpret those rules for you.

11 hours ago, ARYOUNG said:

How would other commissioners go about censuring the BOC Chair? Just a motion? If censured, what would be the outcome of such? Would the initial vote be re-voted upon?

If the desire is to bring back the original motion, a member should either make the motion anew (if the original motion failed) or move to Rescind the original motion (if the original motion passed).

Unless your rules provide otherwise, censure is simply a main motion. The outcome is that the assembly has formally expressed its disapproval of the chair. There is no effect on the original motion.

18 hours ago, Guest John Oscar said:

What is the proper way to censure an unruly board member? What is the proper way to suspend a board member?

A motion to censure may be made as a main motion, which is debatable and amendable and requires a majority vote for adoption. Such a motion must be very carefully worded to remain within the bounds of decorum, however, so this may not be an option depending on what exactly the member is accused of. Censure may also be applied as a penalty after formal disciplinary procedures. Since not everyone is clear on this point, it should be noted that censure is a formal expression of disapproval and carries no further penalty.

It's not entirely clear to me that suspending a board member is an option under RONR. The text explicitly mentions that a member of the society may be suspended, but for officers (which board members are), the text lists censure and removal from office, and then mentions that in special circumstances, other penalties may be appropriate.

As for removal from office, see FAQ #20.

On 12/7/2016 at 11:33 PM, Guest Ronnieadair@cox.net said:

If an officer announces that they will not be running again, a new person is running unapossed for that office.  The secret vote is conducted and 109 eligible voters vote and 51 people write in the retiring officer, 49 vote for the new nominee and the balance of the votes goes to others.   The retiring officer clearly again states they will not accept the position.   In this case would not the new nominee be the new board member?

I concur with Mr. Brown and would add that you would have an incomplete election even if the retiring officer was willing to serve. A majority (more than half) of the votes cast is required for election. If 109 votes are cast, a majority is 55. Since no candidate received a majority, you have an incomplete election and must vote again.

The person with 49 votes may well end up clinching the election on the second ballot, but it is also possible that a dark horse candidate will emerge from the "others."

1 hour ago, Guest Donna said:

we are having an annual meeting and because our board are total control freaks and have been on the board for 11 plus years we want them off. What is the best way to do it at a meeting? Motion to resign?

we need any help you can offer

Well, if this is the annual meeting, I would guess that at least some (and possibly all) of the board members' terms have expired, in which event you may simply vote for someone else in the election.

If it is desired to remove board members whose terms have not expired, then whether this is possible, and how to accomplish it, depends on how the bylaws word the term of office. It may or may not be possible to accomplish this in a single meeting. If the society only meets annually, it may be necessary to schedule one or more special meetings.

A resignation is a voluntary act, so a motion for the board members to resign would not be in order.

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

A standing rule?  I agree that a special rule of order would be sufficient and almost said so in my comment, but a standing rule?   That rule, if not in the bylaws, would would have to be in the special rules of order, wouldn't it? 

If the rule merely allows members of the society to attend, this does not appear to be in the nature of a rule of order.

I think you could argue, however, that adopting this standing rule would require a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice, since the rule is countermanding a decision of the board.

40 minutes ago, Godelfan said:

Mr. Martin's comment got me thinking - a standing rule of whose?  A standing rule of the board can, of course, be suspended by the board (or amended out of existence).  But a standing rule adopted at a membership meeting would be sufficient, and couldn't be suspended by the board, I think.  

Either the board of the membership could adopt the rule. As you note, which body adopts the rule has implications for amending, suspending, or rescinding the rule.

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I understand there are conversion programs available that might let you run it on a Mac (or maybe an iPad).  Perhaps somebody with more expertise will weigh in.  I'm using it on my Windows laptop. I know somebody who I believe has done it (or at least tried to).  I will follow up with him.

There are programs which will allow a user to emulate Windows on a Mac, which will enable installation of Folio Views. It is highly unlikely this would work on an iPad.

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

. . . Unless your bylaws grant non board members the right to attend board meetings.

Sure, but I do not think such a rule would have to be placed in the bylaws. Even a standing rule would be sufficient, in my opinion.

3 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Perhaps the board members could be removed from office (see FAQ #20).

Well, I think the issue is that they wish to observe the board's meetings to see what the board does about the improprieties before they decide what further action to take. Perhaps the membership could adopt a motion ordering the board to permit the society's members to attend this board meeting.

1 hour ago, Guest Blen said:

Hello, I am interested in the electronic version of the 11th edition. If I buy the CD ROM can I copy it on my laptop and ipad? Thanks

You could install it on your laptop (if your laptop runs Windows). The CD-ROM is only required for installation. It's not just a PDF or something, however - it uses the Folio Views software. So you cannot copy it to your iPad.

2 hours ago, Guest Nancy N. said:

This ruling of the chair is not in response to a point of order, but (I think I'm forgetting, maybe) is the chair here obliged to give his reasons, and if so, do they go in the minutes?

Yes to both questions. I do not think the fact that the chair made the ruling on his own initiative makes any difference.

2 hours ago, Guest Austin R said:

in 2015 the 3 student unions at university held a referendum to levy a auxiliary fee to help pay for a new athletic facility. 2 out of 3 unions passed (our university requires 3 separate referendums because of 3 unions). There was no wording in the by laws to say there was an expiration date on those Yes votes. So we asked them to vote in their councils if they would stand by last years votes. They did so and we were able to just re-run the referendum for the union that didn't pass this year. That referendum closed on a Thursday at 4pm. And at 5:30pm one of the unions  rescinded their pervious position to no longer be a Yes but No. (their council meeting date and the presentation of the motion in their agenda was correctly done) 

but how can they take something back after the fact?

I'm afraid your question is well beyond the scope of RONR and this forum. It seems that resolving this matter will involve interpreting the customized rules of four different organizations (the three student unions and the university). I advise consulting a professional parliamentarian in your area. The National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians provide referrals.

2 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

If the bylaws stated that the voting shall be by electronic means is it possible that, in and of itself, would be sufficient to disallow write-in votes?  Not a rhetorical question, by the way.  

No.

33 minutes ago, Guest Austin R said:

Question.

Can a previously passed motion which had a expiration date be  rescinded after that time period had past? 

This relates to the context of a student referendum issue. The council is trying to say they no longer hold a position/opinion on a issue but had already voted in favour prior to the closing date of that referendum. So now have flipped flopped but the referendum has closed. Is this a valid motion?

I concur with Mr. Huynh that, if the motion has truly expired, it may not be rescinded.

Based on the facts presented, however, it is not entirely clear to me that the motion has expired. I think we would need to know more about the wording of the motion and how this referendum process works to determine whether the fact that the referendum has closed means that the original motion is expired.

18 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree.  .  I would also add that there might be school or university rules of some type that grant faculty and administration advisors the right to attend and / or participate in meetings of student organizations. Any such rules would trump the provisions of RONR.

I'm not sure about that. So far as RONR is concerned, the only rules which take precedence over RONR are the society's own rules, clearly requisite points in the rules of the parent organization, and applicable rules in the nature of rules of order in federal, state, or local law. Since this is a public university, it may be that state law provides something on this matter, or authorizes the university to adopt its own rules on this subject. It also may be the case that the relationship between the university and the student government is such that the university is the "parent organization" of the student government, but this is by no means certain.

With all that said, it may also be that, as a practical matter, it is in the student government's best interest to permit administrators to speak at its meetings, but that is not a parliamentary issue.

18 hours ago, Godelfan said:

Somehow, though, I feel uncertain that school administrators will listen when told by the presiding officer to be quiet or be removed as disruptive non-members.

Quite possibly. If this becomes an issue, it may become necessary for the student government to hold its meetings outside of university property.

It could also be that it is merely individual administrators that are the problem, and the issue could be resolved by reporting the matter to their superiors.

7 hours ago, Guest Rachel said:

There's a lot to describe, but basically the main issue is that 1. the meeting was not run properly. There was a motion on the table to approve the constitution, that motion never got voted on, and then the same motion was made for a second time and voted on. When someone tried to make an amendment, they were screamed over by a non-voting administrator at the university and silenced. The vote was to use Robert's Rules as a "guide" instead of following it as our explicit parliamentary procedure. Legally, administration cannot influence decisions at these meetings because they are student-run and funded by student activity dollars, and since we are the governing body that allocates these dollars, administration can have no say. The vote to keep it "as a guide" is to silence others, like the gentleman that spoke in opposition to the change.

It certainly sounds like there were errors, but nothing you have said supports your belief that "nothing voted on in the meeting was valid." Errors which are severe enough to invalidate a motion (let alone an entire meeting) are few and far between. It may very well be necessary, however, to educate the presiding officer (and the other members). If the presiding officer is not willing to learn, it may be necessary to remove him from office.

Regarding the specific issues you raised...

• The motion to approve the Constitution (which I assume was, in fact, a motion to amend the Constitution - you presumably already have a Constitution) should have been voted on or disposed of in some other fashion.
• No one, especially a non-member, may scream over and silence a member who has the floor.
• The motion to use RONR "as a guide" rather than as the parliamentary authority was ill-advised.
• As a parliamentary matter, non-members have no right to speak and may do so only with the assembly's permission, which requires a 2/3 vote if a motion is pending.
• Legal issues are beyond the scope of RONR and this forum.

As you say, your organization is in need of major help. If your organization is up for it, I would advise hiring a professional parliamentarian to teach your organization about parliamentary procedure. The National Institute of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians provide referrals.

16 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

S3.) If a standing or special committee is so large that it can function best in the manner of a full‑scale assembly, it should be instructed that the informalities and modifications of the regular rules of parliamentary procedure listed for small boards on pages 487‑88 are not to apply to its proceedings.
***

• Please note S3.
If "informality" is not suitable to the committee, then "formality" is suitable.
No fundamental principle is involved. No violation of rights-of-membership is involved.
Just toggle, from one to the other.

I'd say this quotation undermines your point rather than supporting it. The quotation says that in such cases, the committee "should be instructed" that the informalities and modifications do not apply. This suggests that it is the power of the parent assembly, not the committee, to determine whether to activate this "toggle."

16 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Please note S2.
A committee may not adopt its own rules.
But S2 never says that a committee cannot suspend the rules.
No surprise here. -- If S3 allows for the rules to toggle between
(a.) informal vs. (b.) formal;
then there should no surprise that a committee can toggle a single instance where the default rule interferes with a higher priority, e.g.,
(a.) a time deadline (as page 500 footnote gives); or
(b.) a member who abuses the right to debate to the dilatory detriment of the committee (as page 500 gives).

Since page 500 footnotes gives us two instances where there is no problem with toggling the rule in other other direction, then there must be some kind of flexibility built-in to the rule. -- Q. Why else would page 500's footnote offer two exceptions to the "rule"?

Again, I think this undermines your argument rather than supporting it. The footnote on pg. 500 refers to a situation in which a single member abuses his right to speak an unlimited number of times. The footnote continues to suggest that the committee report this action to the parent assembly. The footnote then suggests that, if and only if there is no time for the parent assembly to address the matter, the chair should not let the member continue speaking.

If it was indeed possible for a committee to suspend the rules and limit or end debate by a 2/3 vote, nothing which is said in this footnote would be at all necessary, because the committee would simply suspend the rules in the situation the footnote describes. The exceptions on pg. 500 exist precisely because the rule cannot be suspended.

Committees are not categorically prohibited from suspending the rules, but they are prohibited from suspending rules which are specifically intended as a limitation on the powers of the committee.

57 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

OK. I will try to explain.

See the quote: ". . . having the benefit of . . .".

A "benefit" is not a "protection".  -- Do not equate a nicety with a right-of-membership. You can suspend a benefit, an advantage, a nicety.

The rule (to cut off debate) is not absolute. It is a rule in the nature of a rule of order, which even Robert's Rules says the chair may abridge for the singular individual of page 500's footnote.

So it cannot be an absolute rule.

It is just out of order. But out-of-order motions can be made in-order via a suspension of the rules. Like any out-of-order motion.

See the quote: ". . . if there is no opportunity for this to occur . . .".

Even RONR allows for those committees which are tight on time to do something which normally would have been out-of-order.

Nothing surprising about that. -- If there is no reasonable time to finish X, then a workaround is allowed, by RONR.

***

Again, it is just a default rule. Not an absolute rule.

There is no "protecting" going on. It is merely an attribute of committee behavior, but not all committees, in those instances where time is a bigger factor more so than would have been in an average, unconstrained committee.

So are you saying that the rule may be suspended, but only under the conditions described on the footnote on pg. 500? Or are you saying that the rule can be suspended, full stop?

49 minutes ago, paulmcclintock said:

"In order that there may be no interference with the assembly's having the benefit of its committees' matured judgment, motions to close or limit debate are not allowed in committees" (RONR 11th ed., p. 500, ll. 18-21).

Q1:  Can this rule be suspended? 

No. A committee may not suspend this rule, because the rule is for the benefit of the assembly. In extreme circumstances, however...

"If a member abuses his privilege of speaking an unlimited number of times in debate in order to obstruct the business of the committee, such dilatory behavior should be reported to the committee's parent, which may then remove that member from the committee, adopt an order limiting or closing debate in the committee, or take such other action as it deems advisable. However, if there will be no opportunity for this to occur within the time needed to effectively resolve the problem, it is the duty of the committee chairman to deny such a member any further recognition to speak in debate on the pending question. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 500, footnote)

I think this footnote is also additional evidence that the rule cannot be suspended. If it could be, the procedures in that footnote would be unnecessary.

49 minutes ago, paulmcclintock said:

I lean toward the notion that it cannot be suspended, because the group "protected" is the assembly, rather than some subset of the committee (whether present or absent). 

And even if there was no objection to "suspend the rules and close debate" (for instance), I'd think that it would not be in order, but that the chair could appropriately say something like, "Although the rules may not be suspended to close debate, the fact that there is no objection to doing so indicates that no one else is seeking to debate, thus we will proceed to putting the motion to a vote."

Or am I missing something?

I think you have this exactly right.

38 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

OK, i'll take the first bite at this.

As to Q1, I believe the rule can be suspended.  I also believe that the assembly could adopt a special rule of order permitting motions to limit debate in committees. 

Q2:  Not applicable as I believe the rule can be suspended.

Q2b:  I do not see the rule as protecting a minority of a particular size (or any minority, for that matter), so I believe it can be suspended with the traditional two thirds vote.

I am in complete agreement that the assembly may adopt a special rule of order permitting motions to limit debate in committees. I disagree, however, that the committee may suspend the rule, let alone by a mere 2/3 vote. If the committee could suspend the rule by the same vote as is required to limit debate, the rule seems pointless, as it is easily set aside. Additionally, the footnote on pg. 500, which was added in the 11th edition, seems entirely unnecessary. I find it unlikely the Authorship Team would do all that typing for nothing.

The rule in question is intended for the benefit of the parent assembly, not the committee, and therefore, it may not be suspended. It is similar to a rule which requires that board meetings (perhaps with certain exceptions) be open to the general membership. Such a rule may not be suspended, because the individuals the rule is designed to protect are not members of the board.

30 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Review the context:

   • This was an annual meeting.

   • The motion, to adjourn the annual meeting, was adopted.

What does this imply?

It probably implies that the original poster was speaking on a topic which the majority of the members present thought was of less value than "going home."

It probably implies that the portion of the meeting was in the "good of the order / general welfaire" kind of business. -- All talk. No motions.

Yes, I think it is fair to say that a majority of the members present preferred to go home rather than listen to the member speak. As to the latter point, I think that it is certainly a possibility - it is not clear to me whether a motion was pending - but I don't think we can assume that no motion was pending.

30 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Robert's Rules of Order does allow a speaker to be interrupted, for a subset of motions. -- See tinted page 40, for a list of ten such motions.

So the "interruption" isn't an act to be accorded the level of egregious violation, when there are ten legitimate opportunities to do exactly that.

It's no "fundamental principle."

If it is not a fundamental principle, then it must be something else.

I think it is indeed "something else."

No one has suggested that the violation is egregious enough to constitute a continuing breach, nor that the violation of a fundamental principle is involved. It is indeed "something else." All that has been suggested is that there are different degrees of "something else." The fact that a violation does not constitute a continuing breach does not mean it is "minor," as you have previously suggested.

As I understand the facts, the chair permitted a motion to adjourn to be made while a member legitimately had the floor. In and of itself, this might be viewed as the chair being woefully misinformed about the rules on the motion to adjourn. This is unfortunate, but if the story had ended there, I'd probably just advise the OP to talk to the chair about it before the next meeting, and everything should get sorted out for future meetings.

What happened next is a horse of a different color. The member who had the floor informed the chair several times that she had not yielded the floor. Rather than responding to the member's complaint with a ruling or explanation, the chair ignored the member and proceeded to put the motion to adjourn to a vote. This seems to me to be an instance of "gaveling through" the proceedings, and while this does not invalidate the meeting or any of the business conducted wherein, it casts serious doubts as to the chair's fitness for the duty of presiding. I would not, therefore, describe this violation as "minor."

10 hours ago, Amna said:

Can someone please guide me to the relevant law or commentaries explaining whether a committee made by the Bar Council can be Dissolved? A few questions are inter-linked. Once a committee has been constituted, what powers can be exercised by the Bar Council if the committee is inefficient? Does the Bar Council have the power to dissolve the Committee? 

Or whether the committee has a certain security of tenure?

I feel that the general principle 'the power to create includes the power to remove' may apply.  If anyone can provide any law on this matter I will be grateful

We can't answer questions of law here. As a parliamentary matter, I am inclined to agree that if the Bar Council created the committee, it has the power to dissolve it. What exactly is required to dissolve the committee, however, depends on how the committee was established. As to what other powers may be exercised, the Bar Council would have the authority to remove or replace any or all of the committee's members, and to instruct the committee as it sees fit, unless something in applicable law or the organization's rules provides otherwise.

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Agreeing with transport, I would add that if the committee is established in the bylaws or other governing document it may not be possible to dissolve it, but perhaps the members can be replaced.

If the committee is established in the bylaws or other governing documents, the committee may be dissolved by amending those documents.

8 hours ago, Rev Ed said:

And this is exactly why I have an issue with RONR not requiring a member with an interest in an issue not being involved in discussion or vote to abstain from voting or being involved in debating any motion dealing with the issue. Then again, and organization could adopt a By-law to that effect.  Failing either a change in the next addition of RONR or a By-law to the contrary though, I would question why a member should be removed from office for doing something that the By-laws and RONR essentially allow the member to do.  Is that ethical?  Probably not, but that's not what we are discussing.

RONR does not require this for two reasons, I think:

• Historical reasons - As I understand the facts, members of the House of Representatives were not (and still are not, I believe) required to abstain on the grounds of having a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members. RONR is principally based on these procedures, modified only as necessary to adapt to the needs of ordinary societies.
• Practical reasons - What constitutes a "personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members" is often ambiguous. As a result, if it was required to abstain in such cases, ambiguous cases would need to be decided, on the spot, by the chair or the assembly, which has its own problems.

Under the rules in RONR, a member makes these judgment calls for himself. RONR is clear, however, that a member should not vote when he has a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members. Furthermore, RONR makes it clear that a member may be removed for any "conduct which is injurious to the organization." The society is not limited to removing members for behaviors which RONR prohibits or which the text states that members should not do.

As you note, a society is free to adopt its own rules on this subject if it wishes to do so.

On 11/13/2016 at 11:23 AM, Guest GuestXIV said:

I disagree that Josh M's citation is clear about the meaning of "member" in the context of quorum.  Definitions aren't necessarily general; they may shift depending on context.

 The definition of quorum specifically references the definition of member on pg. 3.

"As indicated on page 21, a quorum in an assembly is the number of members (see definition, p. 3) who must be present in order that business can be validly transacted." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 345)

The definition of quorum in a particular organization's bylaws, state corporation code, legislature, or television show may or may not be different, and those definitions will apply within those contexts, but the definition of quorum in RONR is clear.